One Sink v. United States

Eighth Circuit

One Sink v. United States

334 F.2d 236, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4725

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 1964

Docket17738

StatusPublished

This text of 334 F.2d 236 (One Sink v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

One Sink v. United States, 334 F.2d 236, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4725 (8th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order making denial of a motion to suppress and for return of the seized property. Notice of appeal was filed in the District Court on March 10, 1964. Between that date and July 8, 1964, appellants took no steps to docket and proceed with the appeal in accordance with our Rules. Upon a motion being made by the United States to docket and dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, appellants now ask leave to be permitted to proceed with the appeal. There is no showing of excusable neglect for the failuré to have proceeded in accordance with our Rules.

The request of appellants for leave now to proceed is denied. The motion of the United States to docket and dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute is granted. Docketing and dismissal will, however, be permitted to be without prejudice to any right which appellants might otherwise have to raise the question here sought to be presented, on an appeal from subsequent conviction.

Appeal docketed and dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order making denial of a motion to suppress and for return of the seized property. Notice of appeal was filed in the District Court on March 10, 1964. Between that date and July 8, 1964, appellants took no steps to docket and proceed with the appeal in accordance with our Rules. Upon a motion being made by the United States to docket and dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, appellants now ask leave to be permitted to proceed with the appeal. There is no showing of excusable neglect for the failuré to have proceeded in accordance with our Rules.

The request of appellants for leave now to proceed is denied. The motion of the United States to docket and dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute is granted. Docketing and dismissal will, however, be permitted to be without prejudice to any right which appellants might otherwise have to raise the question here sought to be presented, on an appeal from subsequent conviction.

Appeal docketed and dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F.2d 236, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-sink-v-united-states-ca8-1964.